Category: Domestic Violence

Domestic violence: She faced her ex in court. Then the police visits started | SMH

A few days after her violent ex-boyfriend faced court on domestic violence charges, Sally* was woken by three officers banging on her front door.

“I woke up to a police flashlight shining in my face,” Sally said. “They arrived with lights and sirens and wanted to check every room.”

There had been an anonymous tip to police about alleged criminal behaviour, and officers needed to search her entire house on Sydney’s northern beaches. They found nothing.

After Sally explained the history with her former partner and confirmed she wasn’t in need of support, police flagged her business and home so officers would call first to check on her.

Domestic Violence NSW senior policy and advocacy officer Angie Gehle said misusing police reports and welfare checks is a recognised form of system-based intimidation.

Gehle said survivors have told her about unannounced police visits during stressful periods or false child protection reports.

“It’s systems abuse, using the systems there to protect people against victim-survivors,” she said.

Perpetrators making false reports can be charged with stalking and intimidation, and repeated vexatious reports may constitute coercive control.

Source: Domestic violence: She faced her ex in court. Then the police visits started

Recent cases and reform on the use of defamation to silence victims – Law Society Journal

In 2022, Siobhan Lamb was bankrupted after reporting the concerning behaviour of her former partner, Sheldon Sherman, to police. After she ended their relationship, his excessive texts, threats to her university education and unsolicited contact with her family caused her distress. Ms Lamb did what she thought was right by reporting this conduct. She could not have been prepared for what unfolded. In Sherman v Lamb [2022] QDC 215, Sherman sued Lamb for defaming him with imputations contained in the police report and by disclosing the contents of that report to his ex-wife’s lawyers.

In the first instance, Sherman won. Jarro DCJ found Ms Lamb injured his reputation with no defences available. This bankrupted Ms Lamb, who was forced to pay not only the $10,000 in damages awarded, but also—as the losing party—Sherman’s enormous legal costs.

Lamb overturned the decision on appeal by way of a trustee in bankruptcy on a point of law related to qualified legal privilege. In Bill Karageozis as trustee for the bankrupt estate of Siobhan Lamb v Sherman [2023] QCA 258, the full Queensland Court of Appeal found the defence of qualified privilege in defamation law can attach to police reports even if the conduct reported does not amount to a crime (at [21]). It also found Lamb did not act with malice (at [34]).

While vindicated, Lamb is not a winner. She endured the trauma of protracted legal proceedings and bankruptcy, all because she was a woman who reported escalating coercive control behaviours of an ex-partner to police. Her ex-partner weaponised the law to try and silence her.

Solutions are needed to make it safe for women to report harm at work or at home. Urgent defamation reform is one solution, as is the creation of laws which look to ‘throw out’ abusive lawsuits known as ‘strategic lawsuits against public participation’ (‘SLAPPs’). Anti-SLAPP laws recognise the law can be misused to shut down public participation, providing a tool for those trying to silence others. Everyone needs to feel safe when reporting harm, and the legal profession and our systems have a vital role in making that possible.

This problem exists all over the world. The UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women called the act of threatening survivors with
legal proceedings ‘a form of gender-based violence in and of itself’ in a
2018 report.

As Lamb’s case and research illustrate, communicating with just one person can constitute the publishing of defamatory material. The reality is that accusing a person of sexual harassment or violence will inherently meet the threshold of harming a person’s reputation, because that person may be perceived as a perpetrator of harm.

Should a victim-survivor refuse to apologise and withdraw their imputations they must rely on a defamation defence. If they rely on the truth defence, their case may come down to credibility and evidence. An obvious issue is that sexual harassment or abuse often occurs without witnesses, so many victim-survivors’ claims cannot be corroborated.

The defence of qualified privilege is most relevant to reports of misconduct to human resources or an employer. As was shown in Lamb’s case, this defence is made out if a defendant can prove they had a legal, social or moral duty to communicate the information and the recipient had a reciprocal interest in receiving the information. However, as with Lamb, it is not straightforward and, importantly, relies on a full trial to be successful. Further, this defence can be defeated if a court determines the defendant acted with malice.

On 22 September 2023, the Standing Council of Attorneys-General approved the Part B amendments of the model defamation laws, to extend absolute privilege to police reports, reasoning that ‘feedback from stakeholders suggests the defence of qualified privilege does not provide a sufficient safeguard against this deterrent effect’. But they stopped short of extending that to all circumstances where a person may report, curtailing the potential benefit for victim-survivors.

Magar v Khan [2025] FCA 874 (‘Magar v Khan’), the landmark sexual harassment case run by Redfern Legal Centre with Dilan Mahendra as counsel, contained a defamation concerns notice. Biplavi Jarga Magar, a migrant worker, was sexual harassed while working at a Mad Mex chain restaurant. When she reported the conduct, she was met with a concerns notice from Sher Khan alleging she had defamed him. Instead of backing down, Magar, with her legal team, sought to classify this concerns notice as ‘victimisation’ (at [62]).

Pursuant to section 47A of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (‘SDA’), it is unlawful for a person to cause detriment to another because they have made a sexual harassment complaint. Magar v Khan tested these provisions and the Court confirmed a concerns notice sent in response to Magar’s sexual harassment complaint constituted acts done in contravention of the victimisation provisions of the SDA (at [158]). Not only did this case see a groundbreaking $305,000 in damages, but it also set a precedent, encouraging alleged perpetrators and their lawyers to consider how they use legal processes when responding to sexual harassment victim-survivors.

The Human Rights Law Centre, in its 2024 report, Stop the SLAPP, defines a SLAPP as an exploitative use of the law ‘not to resolve genuine legal disputes but rather to silence or discourage participation, advocacy or activism. These strategies create financial and emotional strain on those they target’ (at 4).

Defamation reform in Australia would assist to counter the use of abusive defamation claims. The reluctance of decision-makers to extend absolute privilege to all recipients receiving reports of sexual misconduct sits uncomfortably against the broader epidemic of gendered violence, which our systems are failing to address. However, there is opportunity for reform.

The misuse of law to silence women is not inevitable.

Source: Recent cases and reform on the use of defamation to silence victims – Law Society Journal

Pauline Hanson was once dubbed ‘queen of the men’s rights movement’. Her 30-year career shows why | The Conversation

Over recent weeks, Pauline Hanson made headlines for her comments on domestic violence. She declared domestic violence is “a two-way street”.

Media outlets then unearthed a 2025 podcast episode in which Hanson called paid domestic and family violence leave a “holiday”, and alleged domestic violence diverts police attention away from “real crime”.

While Hanson says her comments were taken out of context, her stance on domestic violence is not new.

In fact, as I chart in a forthcoming piece in Australian Historical Studies, her identification with male grievance has been core to her politics since day one. She’s been dubbed “queen of the Australian men’s rights movement”.

Yet this aspect has been largely overlooked by journalists and scholars alike, overshadowed by her attitudes toward racial diversity and immigration.

Defender of men’s rights

In 1996, Hanson told a journalist:

I think the most downtrodden person in this country is the white Anglo-Saxon male.

In 2023, she said in parliament:

[…] but, no doubt, I will be the only woman today speaking for the most oppressed and neglected minority in Australia: men.

As evidenced by these two quotes, almost 30 years apart, Hanson has consistently cast herself as an unwavering champion of men’s rights.

Though the manosphere has been trending in recent years, it’s just the latest manifestation of the men’s rights movement, which took off in the 1960s.

A subset of this movement is the fathers’ rights movement. Its followers believe the push for women’s rights has gone “too far”, that the Family Court is under feminist rule, and that the “feminist domestic violence industry” weaponises family law against men.

At the core of both movements is a simultaneous belief in male supremacy and male victimhood, with women as the primary villain in both cases.

Hanson championed the men’s rights agenda long before the rise of the manosphere. Hanson 1.0 (1996-98) and Hanson 2.0 (2016–) alike adopted many of the movement’s demands as core policy. This was most evident in attacks on family law for its supposed anti-male bias, a victim-blaming rhetoric of domestic violence and general anti-feminist sentiments.

Hanson vs the Family Court

Since the 1990s, Hanson has been an ardent believer in the myth that men are victimised by the Family Court system.

In her 1996 maiden speech, she attacked both the Family Law Act and child support scheme for being biased against “non-custodial” (male) parents, arguing the former “brought death, misery and heartache to countless of Australians” while the latter “has become unworkable, very unfair and one sided. Custodial parents can often profit handsomely at the expense of a parent paying child support”.

After successful lobbying by men’s rights groups, in 2019 Hanson moved for a parliamentary inquiry into the family law system and was appointed as its deputy chair.

Throughout the inquiry, Hanson endorsed evidence from the men’s rights groups invited to give testimony, while disparaging bodies representing single mothers and women’s legal services.

Hanson vs domestic violence

Hanson has long advanced men’s rights movement myths about domestic violence.

Demonstrating the increasing radicalisation of Hanson 2.0, in her 2016 maiden speech she warned the murder of women by their former partners out of “sheer frustration” would increase unless men are treated with more respect in “this unworkable system”.

Hanson vs feminism

Lastly, Hanson has been staunchly anti-feminist since her early days in parliament, appealing to men who feel directly threatened by feminism.

In a 2019 parliamentary speech, she stated she had had a “gutful of hearing from man-hating feminists […] I’m sick and tired of this constant criticism of men in Australia, especially if they’re white”.

Source: Pauline Hanson was once dubbed ‘queen of the men’s rights movement’. Her 30-year career shows why

Family law fights and the litany of hits to the hip-pocket | SMH

Parents navigating separation and divorce face potentially tens of thousands of dollars in surprise costs if they head to court to resolve disputes involving their children and finances, experts warn, raising the pressure to reach a settlement.

Expensive reports on family dynamics, fees for expert witnesses and document production, and legal costs thrown away when hearings don’t proceed on the scheduled day are among a litany of hits to the hip-pocket.

Jodylee Bartal, an accredited specialist in family law and a principal solicitor at Melbourne-based firm KHQ Lawyers, said “perhaps the biggest shock of all” for clients was spending time and money preparing for a final hearing and discovering on day one that it would not proceed.

Double-listing matters is a longstanding practice which reflects that a case may settle on the first hearing day, enabling another matter to proceed in the busy court.

Family reports

Experts also said the cost of family reports, which are prepared by an expert such as a social worker, counsellor or psychiatrist, were increasing markedly.

Michael Tiyce, principal of Sydney law firm Tiyce & Lawyers, said the reports were an important piece of evidence in most parenting disputes and typically cost thousands.

“For a family report conducted by a highly respected clinical psychologist who regularly gives evidence in the court, you would be looking at $35,000-plus, which involves assessment of the parents and child over two days and reading of all the relevant material provided to them,” Tiyce said.

“This price can of course increase depending on the amount of work that is required to be undertaken – for example, if there are multiple children with complex psychiatric presentations and lots of reading of subpoenaed material, I have seen that cost blow out to $80,000.”

The reports are typically written by private experts and the costs are borne by the parties, although some reports are prepared by internal court experts at no cost.

Tiyce said family lawyers were required to provide clients with detailed estimates and cost notices which would usually include these estimates, but “they are still often an unwelcome surprise”.

“It certainly adds to the financial load of conducting parenting litigation but is inevitable in a court and legal system that continues to be chronically underfunded by the government.”

Bartal said family reports were more expensive in Sydney.

“In Melbourne they are between $8500 and $12,000,” she said.

Transcript

Sergi said the cost of obtaining transcripts of family law hearings, which are required when filing an appeal, could add up to thousands of dollars a day.

Daily hearing fee

There are also court fees for filing the case and hearings. Bartal said the party who filed the proceedings, known as the applicant, was responsible for paying the “setting down fee” of between $820 and $1115 for a defended final hearing, and a daily fee of the same amount for each day from day two onwards.

Valuations

Bartal said that valuing a business for family law purposes was another costly area.

“The costs can be even higher where the valuer is asked to value the business at two different points in time, for example, at separation and at the present date,” Bartal said. “A business valuation will typically cost upwards of $15,000.”

Witness, subpoena costs

Sergi said that “fees to appear at court to give evidence can also be charged by expert witnesses such as private family report writers or valuers, again potentially creeping into the thousands of dollars”.

Issuing a subpoena to compel a person or organisation to produce documents to the court could also prove an expensive exercise. Sergi said those costs might also add up to thousands.

How to avoid the costs

While lawyers can limit some costs, such as by exploring other options to obtain documents rather than issuing subpoenas, many costs can only be avoided if the cases are resolved outside court.

But in some disputes, including in cases involving family violence, it may not be possible to reach an out-of-court agreement.

The high cost of family law proceedings are in federal MPs’ sights. Zali Steggall and Monique Ryan have called on Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to set up a national inquiry into the family violence crisis amid calls for an urgent injection of funds for legal assistance services.

Ryan said last month that her constituents in Melbourne’s Kooyong “often tell me about their difficulties with financial burden and the family law system after leaving violent or coercive relationships”.

Source: Family law fights and the litany of hits to the hip-pocket

Calls for domestic violence disclosure scheme as regional family abuse rates rise – ABC News

Sarah was physically, emotionally and financially abused by her ex-partner for years. 

But it was not until the Victorian woman fled that she found out she was not his first victim. 

Sarah said it was not until she went through the process of contacting police and receiving family violence support that she realised her ex-partner was a repeat offender.

Sarah is now pushing to have a domestic violence disclosure scheme introduced in Victoria. 

The scheme, also sometimes referred to as Clare’s Law, would allow partners in an intimate relationship with someone, who had concerns about their behaviour, to check in with police to see if there were any prior domestic violence offences. 

South Australia introduced the scheme eight years ago, but is still the only state to do so.

Sarah believes giving people that information at the beginning of a relationship would prevent violence before it starts.

Source: Calls for domestic violence disclosure scheme as regional family abuse rates rise – ABC News

Immediate financial cost for victim-survivors leaving domestic violence rises 71pc, research says – ABC News

Rising living costs and housing insecurity are reshaping the experience of leaving domestic violence.

New research from Anglicare Sydney says the immediate cost for people leaving domestic violence has risen by 71 per cent since 2016, from $4,098 to $7,017.

Claire Dunlop runs Anglicare’s New England North West support services in NSW, and she and her team see firsthand the obstacles victim-survivors face.

Ms Dunlop said it was high time to change the question so many victim-survivors were asked.

“The question we’ve been asking is the wrong question: ‘Why doesn’t she just leave?’ The real question is: ‘Why is it not possible to leave?’

“The further reflection is then, how can we make a difference so that people can leave dangerous situations.”

Source: Immediate financial cost for victim-survivors leaving domestic violence rises 71pc, research says – ABC News

Domestic violence isn’t a ‘two-way street’. The evidence shows it’s gendered and often deadly | The Conversation

Families are still grieving, and many Australians remain saddened and shocked, after the killing of four women and girls in four days earlier this month. And according to Australian Femicide Watch, 37 women have been killed this year.

Many of us have been asking: what more do we need to do to stop men’s violence against women?

There are many evidence-backed answers to this important question. But calling this violence a “two-way street” and misplacing the responsibility for violence back onto victims, as One Nation leader Pauline Hanson did this week, is not one of them.


According to our national Personal Safety Survey, one in four women have experienced violence by an intimate partner or family member since the age of 15, compared with one in eight men.

One in five women have experienced sexual violence since the age of 15, compared with one in 16 men.

And one in five women have experienced stalking since the age of 15, compared with one in 15 men.


The overwhelming majority of this violence is perpetrated by men. We cannot ignore the gendered patterns.

The research has long shown us that planning to leave, and leaving, are among the most dangerous times for women and children.

Not only can leaving be associated with an escalated risk of physical and lethal violence, but often post-separation abuse by former intimate partners continues, with detrimental impacts on women’s and children’s mental health, economic security, and long-term recovery.

And for many victim-survivors, coercive control, including financial abuse, stalking and social isolation, can leave them with little freedom or material resources to leave safely.

The stark reality is for many victim-survivors, there is nowhere safe and affordable for them to go. Domestic violence is the leading cause of homelessness for Australian women and children.

Source: Domestic violence isn’t a ‘two-way street’. The evidence shows it’s gendered and often deadly

The Queensland government promised to put victims first. But it has buried a report from domestic violence survivors | Domestic violence | The Guardian

Exclusive: Leaked document from LNP-convened panel heavily criticises police responses to family violence and calls for civilian oversight.

The Queensland government has buried the findings of its own working group of domestic violence victim-survivors after their report was heavily critical of police responses and called for a “civilian review mechanism” to escalate complaints about police.

The Liberal National government has repeatedly said it would “put victims at the heart” of the state’s justice policies.

Panel members say they cannot speak publicly about the process. One source said on condition of anonymity: “You can say all that you want about being tough on crime and putting victims first, but if it doesn’t come with CCTV footage for the news, then it’s clearly not a government priority.”

Since the LNP came to office, the Queensland police service has scrapped its specialist domestic and family violence command and released a reform plan that said domestic and family violence case management was not “core business”. Police have been given additional powers to issue “on the spot” directions that have seriously concerned women’s advocates.

Source: The Queensland government promised to put victims first. But it has buried a report from domestic violence survivors | Domestic violence | The Guardian

Migrant DFV victim-survivors made to prove genuineness of relationship – ABC News

For women on temporary visas experiencing domestic and family violence (DFV) in Australia, their perpetrators are often also their visa sponsors.

Returning to their home countries is usually unthinkable, as many are terrified of being separated from their Australian children, or they know they will face stigma or abuse over the ended relationship.

The Department of Home Affairs has family violence provisions under the Migration Act, but the application asks for proof the relationship was “genuine” via documents that usually do not exist.

Legal Aid ACT lawyer Jessica Liao said the provisions excluded swathes of temporary visa holders.

Ms Liao said migrants who were secondary applicants to their partner’s student visa were among those excluded.

“So if the person experiences family violence in that situation, then there’s no way to access those protections,” she said.

Ms Liao said many clients had little knowledge about their immigration status.

“We’ve even seen people who’ve come from domestic violence, leave relationships with violence and not realise what visa they were holding,” she said.

Professor of Criminology Marie Segrave has researched temporary migration and DFV.

She said perpetrators who were aware of the department’s “genuine” relationship test were able to derail it by creating “suspicion”.

“Perpetrators try to ensure that victims aren’t on the lease, that they don’t have a shared bank account, that they’re basically in control of every aspect of their lives,” Professor Segrave said.

In a statement, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke said he had expanded the number of visa classes that could access assistance for domestic and family violence, “and lowered the barrier to accessing assistance”.

“In addition, I have taken the unprecedented step of cancelling the visas of multiple people on the basis of credible accusations of domestic violence, including coercive control,”

he said.

Source: Migrant DFV victim-survivors made to prove genuineness of relationship – ABC News

“Misinformation in Parental Alienation Discourse Can Mislead Courts” by Joan S. Meier

Common social science assertions by parental alienation proponents – in expert opinions, judicial trainings and scholarship – can persuade judges that parental alienation is both so real and so destructive that it requires the draconian remedies of removal of children from a loving, physically safe parent and/or forcing them into contact with a parent they fear. These assertions are typically stated as though they are research-based or well-established. Review of cited or other relevant research, however, shows that these assertions are misinformation, unsupported by and/or contrary to established research. This article explores two such claims: first, that children’s fear or hostility toward a parent is a sign of alienation, not abuse; and second, that parental alienation causes severe lifelong harms – justifying the traumatic removal of a child from their parent and home. Without these assertions, parental alienation labels would evoke less urgency for draconian interventions and would be less likely to preempt concerns about the risks posed by an allegedly abusive or harmful parent.

Source: “Misinformation in Parental Alienation Discourse Can Mislead Courts and” by Joan S. Meier